|
|
Post by himiko on Jul 17, 2007 21:23:44 GMT
*runs thankfully out of the Jack board and into the decidedly nicer realms of the Arthur board*
Right, OK, another love/hate thread. I put indifference as an option in the title of this one, because to be honest, I personally didn't find Arthur all that interesting as a character. I mean, he was very much like Nimue- he was meant to be shown as a paragon of virtue, as a sort of ultimately good character, to highlight the general crapness of the kings before him, and Mordred after. Unlike Nimue, he wasn't really on screen long enough for this to grow too annoying, and he did get a swordfight scene. But overall, I felt that although he was a "likable" enough character, if a little too good-to-be-true, I don't really feel much interest in him as a character.
So, what does everyone else think?
|
|
|
|
Post by tosca on Jul 17, 2007 22:21:33 GMT
That's the problem with these paragons of virtue - it's physically impossible for them to be at all interesting because the slightest interesting act would corrupt their shining virtuous aura. Tis a terrible catch 22. Or would be if we didn't have some decidedly more interesting characters to keep us amused.
I agree, I don't find the dude involving enough to hate, although the fact that he killed Mordred and constantly wears such a vapid expression can be pretty irritating.
|
|
|
|
Post by hilloneko on Jul 18, 2007 6:11:57 GMT
I really don't have a dislike nor like of Arther. *cough*(other than the fact he is Merlin's Friend that he also killed Mordred which lead to the end of magic)*cough* He is just another typical good guy type person. No real personality for me to get annoyed with nor care for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Libitine on Jan 6, 2008 13:32:46 GMT
it seemed like Arthur didn't have a big character at all (yes i know the story is about Merlin but still). i mean, he was there but he didn't seem all that important (or at least in my opinion). i don't know i guess i feel indifferent about him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lane of Magic on Jan 7, 2008 1:05:54 GMT
Hm, I agree that Arthur did not get a lot of screen time. And he was meant to come across as the good guy/king Britain needed.
Still, I did find one of his lines intriguing, the one where he avoids talking about his feelings for Guinevere, which conveniently comes after he’s stated how guilty he still feels about what happened with Morgan. In a way, I felt he had never managed to see Morgan as his sister, which is why all the guilt and wish to redeem himself, to go find the Grail, etc. After all, it hadn’t been his fault, because he didn’t know she was his half-sister, but he couldn’t get over the whole thing and put it behind, if he truly was enchanted with her.
|
|
|
|
Post by himiko on Jan 7, 2008 12:39:56 GMT
Well, according to the commentary by the director, the idea with Arthur was for him to be another one of Merlin's failures- because although he's a good king, he still sleeps with his sister, and in doing so lays the scene for his own demise, and fails to complete Camelot, etc, so he was meant to come across as a bit of a weak character. In that respect, I think it worked, but I still found him boring, LOL.
Apparently, in the wedding scene, the whole idea of the unfinished church, unfinished city, unfinished wedding was supposed to illustrate that even Camelot was flawed, that things were going to go wrong, or something, to continue on from Lane's point about Guinevere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Libitine on Jan 7, 2008 13:22:25 GMT
that is very interesting himiko, and now that you mention it, it does make sense. i do have to look into purchasing the DVD with commentary.
|
|
